ILLEGAL TO FLY DRONES IN CANADA UNLESS...

[kensteele]

Yeah. It would suck if you had to register your car, put an ID plate on in (so THEY know who you are!), get a license to operate it, and follow all kinds of stupid rules about where and how you can drive it. I would not like that at all.

more fake news. i just answered that question. stop being so obtuse. and what's up with all the personal attacks, have you guy never heard all this before? are you so captive to being under control that you think this is normal? gosh, seems like the war is already lost....

using an automobile is NOT the appropriate comparison. a recreational drone is more like a bicycle. are bikes registered? do they have plates? there are a few bike rules but not like cars. the bicycle community is smarter than us. they don't just roll over. when they were told their bike could kill somebody and create mayhem and it's for safety reasons and if a bike wants to play on the big boy's highway, they have to follow ALL of the road rules plus MORE, they laughed in the face, took control, and said we're going to do what makes sense and what's smart; not get robbed and taken advantage of. can the drone community do the same please? we're getting taken for a ride, can't you see that?

drone registration is nowhere close to what car registration is like. drone registration is a shame. there's no way to verify drone registration and you can't see the drone license plate, it's not visible, and local leo can't do anything with it, citizens can't use it either (i.e. it's for the bomb squad). it's practically worthless when you can put any set of numbers you want on your drone, unlike with a car. it's full of problems that haven't been thought out.

cars have rules of the road designed to prevent accidents due to the mechanics nature of the cars and the [in]experience of the drivers. recreational drones rules are NOT primarily designed to prevent accidents and have very little to do with the capabilities of the drone even though it is loudly proclaimed by the faa and echoed by pilots. but that's another thread and another discussion.

please no more automobile comparison which have a huge profit motive. if auto license, registration, and insurance were all free, no government would do it. apples and oranges.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

using an automobile is NOT the appropriate comparison.

But but but.... YOU'RE the one who made that comparison.

imagine if cars were under government control to the extent drones already are. you wouldn't like it.

PRO TIP: Start breaking the pills in half.

 

[Nfhill]

Point 3: Whether FAA or any drone flyer likes or dislikes the regulations, our elected officials have mandated the changes. The risks are known (Point2), again they don’t need to be proven through statistics before action to minimize human peril.

It doesn’t matter whether they (FAA) respect me. I don’t need validation from others. I do rely the government regulations to balance needs or desires of all parties.

There are countries that don’t even allow drones... I hope the problems are controlled before this country actually considers that in any serious way.

There are only two ways for the risks to be known. Either one uses past experience to calculate the risk or one performs a rigorous study (backed up by peer review), such as a complicated computer based model, to calculate the actual odds of something undesired happening. As far as I know, neither has ever been done or even attempted. Thus, the risks are not known.

We (you, me, the FAA, and anyone else) can only make guesses about the relative risks. For example, one can say that flying at 400'agl, or lower, poses a lower risk to manned aviation than flying up to 1000'agl, but the actual risk is completely unknown.

If the risk was known, then the FAA could state, with proof, something like X number of hours of flying UAVs up to 1000'agl would result in Y close encounters, Z collisions, or D deaths and compare that with the same number of hours at 400'agl The FAA can't say that or any other articulated risk and neither can anyone else. All they, or anyone else says, is X is likely (as in 'I think or, more correctly, I feel') more risky than Y, so it's ok if you do Y, but don't do X. No one has a clue what the actual risk is.

Nick

 

[Thomas B]

There are only two ways for the risks to be known. Either one uses past experience to calculate the risk or one performs a rigorous study (backed up by peer review), such as a complicated computer based model, to calculate the actual odds of something undesired happening. As far as I know, neither has ever been done or even attempted. Thus, the risks are not known.

We (you, me, the FAA, and anyone else) can only make guesses about the relative risks. For example, one can say that flying at 400'agl, or lower, poses a lower risk to manned aviation than flying up to 1000'agl, but the actual risk is completely unknown.

If the risk was known, then the FAA could state, with proof, something like X number of hours of flying UAVs up to 1000'agl would result in Y close encounters, Z collisions, or D deaths and compare that with the same number of hours at 400'agl The FAA can't say that or any other articulated risk and neither can anyone else. All they, or anyone else says, is X is likely (as in 'I think or, more correctly, I feel') more risky than Y, so it's ok if you do Y, but don't do X. No one has a clue what the actual risk is.

Nick

True! I agree. My statement was Ill-phrased and should have said “potential risks” or maybe “possible consequences”